From: Jimekus on
I'll touch on the design of my anti-capitalist anti-sabbath VB6-based
AI and another co creation called Pig, the People's Internet God, and
Pi, the Prime Intellect, both to be born of the 2012 collapsed gold
Ponzi market, fathered by the thus bankrupted China. Do you agree in
any event, that AI urgently needs an interface between BP and the US

So depending on what "is" is:

' \\ This AI is provided as-is, without any expressed or implied
warranty. In no event
' \\ will the author(s) be held liable for any damages arising from
the use of this AI. FURTHERMORE :- due to the "specified" conflict of
' \\ Permission is only granted to non-supporters of Rothchildlandia
to use this AI within any related code, including
' \\ commercial applications, and to alter it and redistribute it
freely, subject to the following
' \\ restrictions:

snip ....
From: Mayayana on
| I don't know about mystical, I like things more black and white. Either
| it can be explained, or it can't, and 'mystical' is some gray area between
| the two.
Some things can't be easily explained but can
be understood in some way. That highlights part
of the blindness of science I was trying to get at.
We tend to assume that everything worth knowing
can be communicated/considered conceptually.

Even when it's relevant, explanation only goes
as far as language is able to communicate, to others,
something they already know. I often find that language
allows me a way to recognize something that I
understood, or was on the verge of understanding,
before the language arrived. But the language didn't
actually inform me. It just provided my conceptual
mind with words to categorize the understanding
for its own purposes.

Maybe a good example of all this would be
"first love". There's no point trying to explain that to
a child who's never had the experience. The explanation
would be irrelevant, if not impossible. Once
experienced, the romance of first love can be
understood in some way and feels very much relevant
to one's life. Then one can say, "It was just like in
that song. You know that song?" And the other
person says, "Oh, yeah. I know what you mean."
But that's about all the "explanation" you can get
for that experience.

(Of course we logical types
may then launch into an analysis of our oxytocin
levels or our brain chemistry, but that's only to
reassure ourselves that we have some inkling of
what the heck is going on. :)

| Energise worms? That would mean the worms would have to be gnawing
| on the flesh at the moment of death! I'm thinking about typical natural
| causes; a guy goes to sleep and never wakes up. One minute he's
| the next, not. What was lost in the transition?

Maybe the question is more relevant than an
answer. That's where fear goes to the religion
of science for certainty, rather than looking into
the experience. We might try to find technical
answers, but if we can't do justice to first love,
how absurd is it to explain what death is?

From: RW on
On Sun, 4 Jul 2010 22:55:31 -0400, "Kevin Provance" <k(a)p.c> wrote:

>All your other posturing aside, the truth as I described it is obvious to
>every living human being. You are born, you live for a while and you die.
>Hardly up for debate since it happens every day.

Ah, but you conveniently dropped the part of your statement that is
the heart of the debate:

>The "truth" is you're born, you live for a while and you die. That's it.

See the difference? Your assertion of "that's it" is where you left
the area of "truth" and wandered into the realm of opinion, or more to
mayayana's position, "belief."

Just sayin.